3 ms·

If more than one person has thought you are a jerk, especially more than one at a single job, and you don't know why, you're probably a jerk. The classic sign

by Zimahl 8y ago

If more than one person has thought you are a jerk, especially more than one at a single job, and you don't know why, you're probably a jerk. The classic sign of a jerk is someone who can't pinpoint why someone would think they are a jerk in the first place. Or worse, you know why but you just don't care. As far as toxic workers go (jerks included), there are a lot of reasons they are toxic: * They are negative all the time. They sap the enjoyment out of the room. * They are highly critical of other's work. No one else has a problem with the work others are doing, they just nit-pick every little thing. * They avoid hard work and only go after prestige projects. They'll try to push stuff like maintenance work onto others, and half-ass it when they have to do it. * Anything they do wrong is met with a strong defense mechanism and a need to deflect into someone else. I'm sure there's more, these are just off the top of my head. Contrary to belief, being 'brilliant' has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone can be toxic. I've met a few toxic people in software and out, and some were downright mediocre.

commandlinefan 8y ago
Maybe. (Actually, no, not, but for the sake of discussion). I have worked with people that would be considered "brilliant jerks" as in, they were amazing but they were so hard for most people to get along with that they actually were fired for being difficult to work with. It's never happened to me, but I've seen it happen maybe a half-dozen times to other people. What I couldn't help noticing about each of them was that: a) I never had any problem getting along with them. They just came down hard enough on the incompetent that they got a reputation for being unreasonable. b) there were people who were much, much more abusive, but not people that anybody would call "brilliant" (the opposite, in fact), who seemed to be applauded for their ability to anger people. The difference was that they people who got away with it always directed their arrogant attitude down, never up. It just seems to me that the more competent you're _perceived_ to be, the lower the threshold for bad behavior gets you labelled as a "jerk".
- Tehchops 8y ago
  >It just seems to me that the more competent you're _perceived_ to be, the lower the threshold for bad behavior gets you labelled as a "jerk". Yep. If the 80/20 rule is true(and I keep finding anecdotal evidence it is), then wouldn't the natural frustrations of the 20% doing the 80% simply be perceived as toxicity by the other 80% doing the remaining 20%? Take a team of 10 people. If 8 people get together and decide to say the 2 top performers are "toxic"(by whatever metric that is defined), what chance do those 2 people have, even if they are doing 80% of the work?
- krinchan 8y ago
  The cost of "just being honest" over learning some subtlety. I'm smart, I'm competent, I know what I'm doing, and, most importantly, I know how to get you to come along with me willingly. If that fails, well, I know how to say something that only becomes devistating once I leave the room and I'm better friends with all your co-workers anyway. Come at me. The people you saw fired lacked that final quality. They bought into the narrative that our field is a meritocracy and that's a downright lie. They poured all their effort into their skills and ego and left zero room for learning to navigate office politics. They deserved to be fired.

by Zimahl 8y ago

commandlinefan 8y ago

Maybe. (Actually, no, not, but for the sake of discussion). I have worked with people that would be considered "brilliant jerks" as in, they were amazing but they were so hard for most people to get along with that they actually were fired for being difficult to work with. It's never happened to me, but I've seen it happen maybe a half-dozen times to other people. What I couldn't help noticing about each of them was that: a) I never had any problem getting along with them. They just came down hard enough on the incompetent that they got a reputation for being unreasonable. b) there were people who were much, much more abusive, but not people that anybody would call "brilliant" (the opposite, in fact), who seemed to be applauded for their ability to anger people. The difference was that they people who got away with it always directed their arrogant attitude down, never up. It just seems to me that the more competent you're _perceived_ to be, the lower the threshold for bad behavior gets you labelled as a "jerk".

Tehchops 8y ago
>It just seems to me that the more competent you're _perceived_ to be, the lower the threshold for bad behavior gets you labelled as a "jerk". Yep. If the 80/20 rule is true(and I keep finding anecdotal evidence it is), then wouldn't the natural frustrations of the 20% doing the 80% simply be perceived as toxicity by the other 80% doing the remaining 20%? Take a team of 10 people. If 8 people get together and decide to say the 2 top performers are "toxic"(by whatever metric that is defined), what chance do those 2 people have, even if they are doing 80% of the work?
krinchan 8y ago
The cost of "just being honest" over learning some subtlety. I'm smart, I'm competent, I know what I'm doing, and, most importantly, I know how to get you to come along with me willingly. If that fails, well, I know how to say something that only becomes devistating once I leave the room and I'm better friends with all your co-workers anyway. Come at me. The people you saw fired lacked that final quality. They bought into the narrative that our field is a meritocracy and that's a downright lie. They poured all their effort into their skills and ego and left zero room for learning to navigate office politics. They deserved to be fired.